4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Кozelshchina, the Poltava Region, Ukraine.
5.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of theft and corruption. The prosecution's case was that the applicant, a former manager of the Кozelshchina District Consumers' Cooperative[1] (“Козельщинська райспоживспілка”) was involved in official misconduct, namely stealing from the shops under his management.
6.  On 24 September 1998 the Prosecutor's Office of the Кozelshchina District of the Poltava Region (hereafter “the District Prosecutor's Office”) ordered the applicant's detention.
7.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant was released under the obligation not to leave his place of residence.
8.  On the same day the investigator ordered the applicant's suspension from his duties pending the criminal proceedings. Following this order the applicant's employer, the State-owned Joint-Stock Company “Galeshchinske khlibopryimalne pidpryemstvo” suspended the applicant from his duties of the Head of the Board of the company. On 14 April 2003 the Kobylaky District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against this prosecution's order. The court stated that this issue did not fall within its jurisdiction and had to be examined in the course of the criminal trial. On 14 May 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal against this decision for lack of jurisdiction.
9.  On 20 July 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file.
10.  On 3 September 1999 the case was referred to the Kozelishchinskiy District Court.
11.  On 29 September 1999 the Poltava Regional Prosecutor's Office, following the applicant's request, withdrew the case from the court and remitted it for further investigation.
12.  On 1 October 1999 the investigation was suspended as Mr S., another accused in this case, flew from justice.
13.  On 11 February 2000 Mr S. was found and the proceedings were resumed.
14.  On 24 February 2000 Mr S. escaped and was again placed on the wanted list. The proceedings were suspended.
15.  On 2 June 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor of Poltava Region quashed the decision of 24 February 2000 on the suspension of the proceedings and remitted the case for further investigation.
16.  On 8 June 2000 the investigation was suspended as Mr S. was on the wanted list.
17.  On 1 August 2000 the proceedings were resumed.
18.  On 3 August 2000 the criminal case against Mr S. was closed. On the same day the proceedings against the applicant were suspended due to his illness. The proceedings were subsequently resumed on 25 September 2000.
19.  On 2 October 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case-file.
20.  On 4 October 2000 the applicant and his lawyer finished consulting the case-file.
21.  On 28 October 2000 the case was referred to the Poltava Regional Court.
22.  On 2 November 2000 the Poltava Regional Court referred the case to the Avtozavodsky District Court.
23.  On 18 December 2000 the trial proceedings commenced.
24.  The court postponed the hearing in order to summon witnesses on several occasions: on 18 and 20 December 2000, on 29 January, 5 and 7 February, 26 March, 23 April and 4 July 2001. The hearing was adjourned twice following the applicant's requests – on 7 August and 12 December 2001.
25.  On 12 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned in order to provide the applicant with an opportunity to prepare his defence with respect to new charges brought against him, namely, falsification of official documents.
26.  On 7 February 2002 the court sentenced the applicant to three years' imprisonment, suspended on probation, for theft.
27.  On 16 June 2002 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision due to the insufficiency of the pre-trial investigation which could not be remedied during the trial. The Court of Appeal specified, inter alia, the lack of documentary evidence, namely, accounting records, and the failure to question the audit inspectors who had monitored the Cooperative during the period under investigation.
28.  The case-file was received by the District Prosecutor's Office on 30 July 2002, and on 7 August 2002 an investigator was assigned to deal with the case. However, the investigation was delayed until September 2002 due to the illness of the investigator.
29.  During the additional investigation, a number of witnesses were questioned and several audit inspections were ordered.
30.  On 6 December 2002 the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the investigator.
31.  On 26 February 2003 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's illness. The proceedings were subsequently resumed on 25 March 2000.
32.  On 17 April 2003 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file. On the same day the applicant finished consulting the case-file.
33.  On 29 April 2003 the case was referred to the Kozelishinskiy District Court.
34.  The trial proceedings commenced on 8 July 2003. On the same day the hearing was adjourned till 17 September 2003 due to the Judge's vacations.
35.  The court heard the merits of the case on 17, 18, 22 and 30 September, 9, 10, 16, 21 and 24 October and 3 November 2003.
36.  On 24 November and 2 December 2003 the hearing was adjourned due to the failure of a witness to appear.
37.  On 11 December 2003 the District Court sentenced the applicant to three years' imprisonment, suspended on probation, for theft and discharged him both from the criminal liability and from the sentence due to the expiry of the statutory time-limit. On the same day the court issued a separate ruling, indicating that the pre-trial investigation had lasted unreasonably long and had included periods when the proceedings had been suspended for no convincing reason. The court stated that the length of the investigation had also hampered the progress of the trial as the witnesses had had significant problems recalling their testimonies given to the investigators some five years before. The court notified the Poltava Regional Prosecutor of these matters and requested to take the appropriate measures.
38.  On 27 February 2004 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, following the prosecution's appeal, quashed the applicant's discharge from the criminal liability, upheld his conviction, three-year probationary sentence and the exemption from serving the sentence.
39.  On 27 January 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.